`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01508
`Patent 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MICHAEL W. DE VRIES
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. ( “Cisco”)
`
`respectfully moves the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“Board”) for the pro hac
`
`vice admission of Michael W. De Vries in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`The Board is authorized to recognize counsel pro hac vice pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), which provides that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding
`upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead
`counsel be a registered practitioner and to any other conditions as the
`Board may impose. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel who
`is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that
`counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`The Board has stated that a motion for admission pro hac vice should
`
`include a “statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding” and “[b]e accompanied by
`
`an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the
`
`following
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`District of Columbia; ii. No suspensions or disbarments from practice
`before any court or administrative body; iii. No application for
`admission to practice before any court or administrative body ever
`denied; iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court
`or administrative body; v. The individual seeking to appear has read
`and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`vi. The individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); vii. All other proceedings
`before the Office for which the individual has applied to appear pro
`hac vice in the last three (3) years; and viii. Familiarity with the
`subject matter at issue in the proceeding.”
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR 2013-00639 (MPT) (Paper 7 at 3-
`
`4).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following facts, supported by Mr. De Vries’ declaration (Ex.
`
`1047), Cisco requests that Mr. De Vries be admitted pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding as he meets the requirements. As an initial matter, Cisco’s lead
`
`counsel in this matter before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, James Marina
`
`(No. 41,969), is a registered practitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`1. Mr. De Vries has more than 17 years of experience as a litigation attorney
`
`specializing in patent litigation, representing clients in patent litigation matters in
`
`various United States District Courts and before the International Trade
`
`Commission.
`
`2. Mr. De Vries is very familiar with U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012, and with
`
`the legal subject matter, technical subject matter, and prior art discussed in
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012,
`
`which forms the basis for this proceeding. He is counsel for Cisco in the co-
`
`pending district court action related to this patent (Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 2-17-cv-13770 (E.D. Mich.), filed
`
`November 20, 2017) and is involved with factual and technical developments in
`
`that matter.
`
`3. Mr. De Vries is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of
`
`California. He is admitted to practice before before the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of California, the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of California, the United States District Court for the Northern District
`
`of California, the United States District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California, the United States District Court of Colorado, the United States District
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
`
`Circuit.
`
`4. Mr. De Vries has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body.
`
`5. Mr. De Vries has never had a court or administrative body deny an
`
`application for admission to practice.
`
`6. Mr. De Vries has never been sanctioned or cited for contempt by any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`7. Mr. De Vries has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board's Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`8. Mr. De Vries agrees to be subject to the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`9.
`
`In the past 3 years, Mr. De Vries was admitted pro hac vice as counsel
`
`before the PTAB in the following actions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2014-01457, IPR2014-01458, IPR2014-01459,
`IPR2015-01052, IPR2015-01053, and IPR2015-01054 as counsel for
`Biscotti concerning a Real Time Video Communications System.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2015-00999 and IPR2015-01001 as counsel for
`Cisco Systems, Inc. concerning Admissions Control In A Connectionless
`Communications Network, and Providing Media Communication Across
`Firewalls, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2016-01398, IPR2016-01401, and IPR2016-
`01402 as counsel for Intel Corp. concerning Security Processor With Bus
`Configuration, Performance Based Packet Ordering In A PCI Express Bus,
`and Method For Effecting The Controlled Shutdown Of Data Processing
`Units, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2016-01434 as counsel for Oracle Corporation
`concerning an Apparatus For Distributing Content Objects To A
`Personalized Access Point Of A User Over A Network-Based Environment
`And Method.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2017-00609, IPR2017-00610, and IPR2017-00616
`as counsel for LivePerson, Inc. concerning Integrated Chat Client With
`Calling Party Choice; Interaction Management; And Method and Apparatus
`for Intelligent Routing of Incoming Calls to Representatives in a Call
`Center, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2018-00320 as counsel for Sierra Wireless, Inc.
`concerning Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with
`Transmission Error Checking.
`
`•
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2017-02183, IPR2018-00128, IPR2018-00176 as
`counsel for Motorola Solutions, Inc. concerning Two-Way Radio
`Equipment and Systems, Related Software and Components Thereof.
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`
`MR. DE VRIES IN THIS PROCEEDING
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding upon
`
`a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel be a
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`registered practitioner and any other conditions the Board may impose. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Cisco’s lead counsel in this Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`matter, James Marina, is a registered practitioner before the Board. Based on the
`
`facts contained herein, good cause exists to admit Mr. De Vries pro hac vice.
`
`Mr. De Vries is an experienced litigator with more than 17 years of patent
`
`litigation experience. Mr. De Vries has represented clients in matters related to
`
`computer systems and networked communications technologies, among others,
`
`and has significant experience in patent litigation matters. Mr. De Vries is
`
`counsel for Cisco in the co-pending litigation on this same patent between same
`
`parties, and Mr. De Vries was, and is, actively involved with the strategy and fact
`
`development in the matter. In view of Mr. De Vries’ extensive knowledge of
`
`the subject matter of this proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this
`
`proceeding and the co-pending district court litigation, Cisco has a substantial
`
`need for Mr. De Vries’ pro hac vice admission and his involvement in the
`
`continued prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Cisco respectfully requests that Michael W. De
`
`Vries be admitted pro hac vice.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James Marina
`James Marina (Reg. No. 41,969)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`
`Robert Kang (Reg. No. 59,609
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Fax: (415) 439-1500
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys For Petitioner Cisco
`Systems, Inc.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 Declaration of George Zimmerman Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`9,812,825
`1002 Curriculum Vitae of George Zimmerman
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`1007
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389,
`Paper No. 69 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01391,
`Paper No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01397
`Paper No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01399
`Paper No. 73 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)
`1011 Oral hearing transcript, August 31, 2017, Juniper Networks,
`Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389, 1391, 1397, 1399.
`1012 Opinion, ChriMar Holding Company, LLC, ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. dba CMA Technologies, Inc v. ALE USA Inc., fka Alcatel-
`Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc., 17-1848, Dkt. No. 55 (May 8,
`2018)
`1013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v.
`Alcatel-Lucent S.A. et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas, Dkt. No. 122, March 28, 2016
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Description
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1014 Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Jury Demand and
`Counterclaim to First Amended Complaint, Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 22 (E.D. Mich. Mar.
`16, 2018)
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`IEEE 802.3-1985
`IEEE 802.3i-1990
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993
`IEEE Standards Association News & Events: Press Releases
`“IEEE 802.3 Standard for Ethernet Marks 30 Years of
`Innovation and Global Market Growth”
`1024 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 to Nelson
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 to Fisher
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 to De Nicolo
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,140,911 to Fisher
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 6,865,152 to Luhmann
`1033 WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`1034
`Swiss Patent No. CH 643 095 A5 to Peguiron, Certified Copy
`of an English Translation Version of CH 643 095 A5, and
`Declaration of John E. Dawson
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No.
`8,902,760, September 18, 2017
`Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action for U.S. Patent No.
`8,155,012, June 14, 2017
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`9
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1037 Dan Blacharski, “Maximum Bandwidth: A Serious Guide to
`High-Speed Networking”, Que Corporation (1997)
`1038 Michael Nootbar, “Why Power Over Signal Pairs?” (March
`2000)
`1039 Randy H. Katz “High Performance Network and Channel-
`Based Storage”, Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`1040 Robert Muir, “DTE power over MDI - DTE Discovery
`Process Proposal” (November 1999)
`1041 Definitions of “10Base-T” and “100Base-T”, Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press 5th ed. 2002
`Standard Microsystems Corp. Data Catalog (1982)
`http://www.bitsavers.org/components/standardMicrosystems/_
`dataBooks/1982_StandardMicrosystems.pdf
`1043 UART Datasheet (2008)
`https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/SCC2691.pdf
`1044 What is a DC-DC converter?
`https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-
`converters/what-is-dc-dc-converter
`1045 What is the Difference Between Linear and Switching
`Regulators? https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-
`converters/linear-vs-switching-regulators
`1046 Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake
`1047 Declaration of Michael W. De Vries in Support of Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Petitioner Cisco Systems,
`Inc.
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`1042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01508
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing is being served
`
`on October 11, 2018, via email directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at
`
`the following:
`
`CHRMC0120IPR@brookskushman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James Marina
`James Marina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`